ICJ Darfur Update: Comparison between Resources Devoted to reporting on Arab-Israeli Conflict and Resources Devoted to reporting on Crisis in Darfur
ICJ Darfur Update:
Comparison between Resources Devoted to reporting on Arab-Israeli Conflict and Resources Devoted to reporting on Crisis in Darfur
Introduction
The International Commission of Jurists is among the most prominent and influential international human rights NGOs. NGO Monitor was founded for the purpose of checking organizations such as these for credibility and objectivity. This study compares the publication resources this organization devoted to Darfur/Sudan to the publication resources it devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2006. The study aims to check the extent to which these organizations devoted resources to each situation proportional to the magnitude of that situation.
Methodology
Previous NGO Monitor studies have used a quantitative comparative methodology. This study, however, numerically compares the publications ICJ devoted to Darfur/Sudan and the publications it devoted to Israel/PA/Hezbollah.
Results
Between 2000 and 2004, while the ICJ issued nineteen statements on the Arab-Israeli conflict, it issued only six on the crisis in Darfur. This large disparity is another example of the organization’s singling out of Israel for condemnation based on a political agenda. In 2005, however, the organization diverted from its previous pattern, issuing two statements regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and six regarding the crisis in Darfur, showing more objectivity.
In 2006, however, ICJ reverted back to its original pattern. It issued eight statements on the Arab-Israeli conflict and only one on the crisis in Darfur. These numbers show the organization’s continued disproportionate focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict as opposed to much worse crises such as that in Darfur. By using the language of human rights not to speak out against the world’s worst human rights abuses, but rather to condemn Israel, ICJ has revealed its use of politically biased standards, rather than universal criteria, to report on human rights.
——————————————————————————————————-
Appendix: Chart Comparing ICJ Resources devoted to Arab-Israeli conflict to Resources Devoted to Crisis in Darfur
For NGO Monitor’s complete update on AI activities in 2006, see here. For NGO Monitor’s complete update on HRW activities in 2005 see here; for NGO Monitor’s complete update on HRW activities between 2002-2004, see here.
Although the quantitative comparative methodology better takes into account the different levels of impact different types of publications have, the purely numerical method still presents enough data to compare reasonably the resources devoted to different situations.
